Lis Rhodes.PDF (PDFy mirror)

Whose History?

Lis Rhodes

Feeling unwilling to write - an inability to manipulate ideas into a theory and facts into
a convincing argument, an apprehension at intervening in the hierarchy of film
history ; an alienation from its underlying thesis of development - 1 began to reflect.

I stopped writing. I read a sentence written by Gertrude Stein. 'Define what you
do by what you see never by what you know because you do not know that this is
so."(1)

I knew that 'Film as Film' represented a particular history ; 'facts', fragments of
film, arranged in sequence ; an illustration of a theory ; film history re-surfaced, the
underlying method unchanged. What was blindingly apparent was the lack of women
both represented in, and involved with, the selection and structuring of the exhibition.

I began making notes. The first word of every heading I made was 'problem' ;
the 'problem' of history and historical method ; the 'problem' of researching women
who apparently don't exist ; the 'problem' to present material in an overtly alienating
context. Who was to be represented, how and why ?

I put these questions to a group of women involved in various aspects of
filmmaking and creative practice. It is the thought and experiences of this group that
lead to this different presentation of history ; history made by women about women.

Remembering a few hours that my sister and I had spent over last Christmas,
looking through a drawer of old photographs and postcards, I began to think about
my own history ; images, moments of emotion, fragments of an event. A sentence
reheard, the sound of.. .the sounds most of all crept back into my mind, surrounding
the crumpled snapshots. A remembered face, a forgotten figure, my sister and I
remembered differently. Moments of remembrance for her were nothing for me.
Others were shared. We talked and laughed together. Traces of this and that
remembered and forgotten centred around a photograph. Is this history ? It is
certainly my history, her history, our history.

The present is the centre of focus. The image moves moment by moment. The
image is history. The view though the lense maybe blurred or defined - focussed or
unfocussed - depending on what you think you know ; what you imagine you see ;
what you learn to look for, what you are told is visible.

There is another history. A history that I have been taught ; that I am told I am
part of ; a reconstruction of events, that I had no part in, causes that I didn't cause
and effects that testify to my sense of exclusion. This is the history that defines the
present, the pattern that confirms and restricts our position and activities.

History is not an isolated academic concern but the determining factor in
making 'sense' - 'nonsense' - of now. Yesterday defines today, today tomorrow. The
values placed upon truth change, viewed from different orientations, different
moments flicker with recognition, others fade into oblivion.

The reason for this discussion of other histories is not necessarily to prove or
disprove the validity of the historical thesis present by 'Film as Film', but rather to
consider its relevance and question its authority. Such authority is implied by the
didactic and impersonal approach and reinforced by the circumstances and context
of its presentation ; therefore, a history not only acceptable to an institution, but
fundamentally determined by it. The focuses, permissions, controls, are all male
orientated. Our problem was not to find an alternative thesis to that of 'formalism' or
'structuralism', or attempt to exclude women's work from this thesis, but to consider

our own history. How do women need to look at the work they do. the lives they lead
? Can we be satisfied with token representation, a reference here and there in
support of a theory of film history which is not our own ?

Problems of history

In a patriarchal class-based society a man's position is determined by social and
economic factors, but women are further defined as secondary within that class
system, the value of their activities and their contributions to that society are
considered secondary. This difference in experience, difference in opportunities must
produce difference in history ; a history of secondary value and largely neglected and
unwritten.

Film history defined by men necessarily positions women outside of its
concerns. Women appear, but on whose terms ? Within whose definitions ?
Apparently historical accuracy is based upon acceptable 'facts', that is those facts
that are the concern of men. Unacceptable 'facts' are forgotten or rearranged. If they
are remembered they are contained within the existing fabric. Alice Guy made some
200 films between 1896 and 1907. Why has she been forgotten ? Her films attributed
to Jasset and Feuillard ?

At the present time we need to show in a polemical but positive way the
destructive and creative aspects of working as women in film, and examine these
phenomena as products of our society and the particular society of film/art. Women
filmmakers may or may not have made 'formalist' films, but is the term itself valid as
a means of reconstructing history ? Is there a commonly accepted and understood
approach ? Historians cannot avoid value judgements. They select and value certain
works. When women are not selected their work plays no further part in film theory,
or historical exhibitions such as this one. A system of theory and criticism uses
authorship and uniqueness to create the value of a work ; then through publication
and exhibition it publicises the authors and perpetuates the values they are said to
represent. The construction of 'new' theories or re-valuations still relate to the
established authors and their works. The purpose of 'Film as Film' is to establish
relations between, attribute influences upon, assign importance to... etc., both of film
to film, and film to other works of art, irrespective of author. This establishes a
system of recognition but does not necessarily reflect the ideas or sensibilities of the
author. Historians take possession of a film or painting as something to be used or
restated. Traditionally, scholarship is not concerned with persons but works and it is,
therefore, assumed that such discussions/writings are impersonal and unbiased. Any
work can be included provided that analysis can reveal such elements of style as the
theory entails.

As a method of reconstructing film history the thesis of 'Film as Film' is useful
only in so far as it satisfies an apparent need to classify, organise and contain. This
imposition of a fixed point of view on film history is dubious and contradicts the idea
that films can be evaluated on their own presuppositions and not manipulated to fit
those of the historian. If we are to reconsider this method of reconstruction then we
must appeal to our own experience, the experience of women filmmakers, not to
theoretical generalisations that either exclude our work or force it into an alien,
impersonal system of explanation.

The history represented here is the illustration of a philosophical ideal, the
meshing of moments to prove a theoretical connection. It is as though a line could be
drawn between past and present and pieces of a person's life and work pegged on it

; no exceptions, no change - theory looks nice - the similarity of item to item
reassuring - shirt to shirt - shoulder to shoulder - an inflexible chain, each part in
place. The pattern is defined. Cut the line and chronology falls in a crumpled heap. I
prefer a crumpled heap, history at my feet, not stretched above my head.

There is the obvious and enormous difference of experience (between women
and men) in the first place ; but the essential difference lies in the fact not that men
describe battles and women the birth of children, but that each sex describes itself.'
(2) It is the case, perhaps, that men have described both. If this 'difference' is
unmistakable then the concept of equality is neither useful nor relevant. Such a
concept presupposes 'sameness'. It disguises 'difference' Similarity, not difference,
expresses the containment of female within the dominant masculine modes of
creativity. Any attempt to express 'difference' must cause opposition and therefore
appear as the expression of a minority ; as is visibly demonstrated in this ('Film as
Film')catalogue and exhibition.

It is neither a question of defining a feminine mode of filmmaking, nor of
persuading any woman to a feminist point of view, but simply of suggesting that
seeing 'difference' is more important than accepting 'sameness' ; realising our own
histories and understanding their many, possibly divergent, forms. It seemed,
therefore, more vital to present a separate approach to history than to argue for an
equal part in the selection of and presentation of 'Film as Film'.

The historical approach that surveys works either published or collected must
reinforce the society/film system that leads to their publication or protection in the
first place. Ideology, therefore, predetermines information and its availability. The
source material valued, written about and conserved reflects a male dominated
society. Had Alice Guy not written about herself would she be accessible now, as a
woman, as a filmmaker?

Women have already realised the need to research and write their own
histories ; to describe themselves rather than accept descriptions, images and
fragments of 'historical evidence' of themselves ; and to reject a history that
perpetuates a mythological female occasionally glimpsed but never heard. Women
are researching and conserving their own histories, creating their own sources of
information. Perhaps we can change, are changing, must change the history as
represented by 'Film as Film'.

Problems of presentation

The group discussions we had during the autumn of 1978 centred on how to present
a history that was our own. We visited film archives and libraries. This was revealing
in two ways : firstly, the discovery of a category called 'women', pleasant, perhaps,
as an indication of a demand for information, but distressing in its confirmation of
history presumed to be male unless otherwise defined.

Without a particularly detailed search our discoveries were encouraging. We
found numerous women engaged in filmmaking prior to 1975. How could we select a
few from amongst them ?

It was this last question that focussed our attention on the problem of who
makes history for whom .

This space at the Hayward Gallery should surely be about women making their
own history ; to show history being re-described, re-thought, re-evaluated. If there
are differences in approach to filmmaking between women and men this will become
explicit without theoretical predetermination. The work presented should not be seen

as illustrating a particular concept of either feminine or feminist filmmaking. The
presentation is as much concerned with the women researchers and their attitudes
as it is with the subjects of their research, women looking at their own history.

We are still faced with the problem : was there any sense in trying to intervene
in the context of 'Film as Film' ? Would any representation of women's work be seen
as merely token in a predominantly masculine exhibition, a ghetto in a male
environment ? However, had no intervention been made then the 'Film as Film'
exhibition would publicly confirm the apparent lack of women filmmakers and the
authority of of a particular history.

Even if the presentation was to be token in dimension and context, it could
provide a public space for information and discussion, not only of what women have
done, but how we understand ourselves and our history. Hopefully, it may encourage
women who are engaged in research, writing or filmmaking to discuss and describe
our histories, in our own ways, on our own terms. A different history .

(1 ) Gertude Stein, 'The geographical history of America', 1 936.

(2) Virginia Woolf reviewing R.Brimley Johnston's book. 'The Women Novelists',
The Times Literary Supplement, 17 October, 1918.

(Article from 'Film as Film: Formal experiment in film', 1910-75'. exhibition catalogue
Hayward Gallery, London, 3 May-17 June, 1979, pp.1 19-120)